Alzheimer Disease Detection Studies: Perspective on Multi-Modal Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases, resulting in progressive cognitive decline, and so accurate and timely AD diagnosis is of critical importance. To this end, various medical technologies and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD), ranging from biosensors and raw signals to medical imaging, have been used to provide information about the state of AD. In this survey, we aim to provide a review on CAD systems for automated AD detection, focusing on different data types: namely, signals and sensors, medical imaging, and electronic medical records (EMR). METHODS: We explored the literature on automated AD detection from 2022-2023. Specifically, we focused on various data resources and reviewed several preprocessing and learning methodologies applied to each data type, as well as evaluation metrics for model performance evaluation. Further, we focused on challenges, future perspectives, and recommendations regarding automated AD diagnosis. RESULTS: Compared to other modalities, medical imaging was the most common data type. The prominent modality was Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). In contrast, studies based on EMR data type were marginal because EMR is mostly used for AD prediction rather than detection. Several challenges were identified: data scarcity and bias, imbalanced datasets, missing information, anonymization, lack of standardization, and explainability. CONCLUSION: Despite recent developments in automated AD detection, improving the trustworthiness and performance of these models, and combining different data types will improve usability and reliability of CAD tools for early AD detection in the clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".